Sector 86 Builder Office Sealed After Buyer Waits 16 Years सेक्टर 86 में 16 साल से प्लॉट का इंतज़ार, बिल्डर का दफ़्तर सील ਸੈਕਟਰ 86 ਵਿੱਚ 16 ਸਾਲ ਤੋਂ ਪਲਾਟ ਦੀ ਉਡੀਕ, ਬਿਲਡਰ ਦਾ ਦਫ਼ਤਰ ਸੀਲ

Two rooms of a property developer's office in Mohali have been sealed because a buyer who paid for a plot in Sector Eighty Six sixteen years ago still has no plot. Amar Ujala reported on the fourth of November that the district consumer forum ordered the office of Preet Land Promoters and Developers attached, and that the Mohali tehsildar carried out the sealing.

The buyer, Sukh Pavandeep Kaur, booked a plot of two hundred square yards in Sector Eighty Six in two thousand and ten for twenty five lakh rupees and paid twelve lakh. Her father told the paper that the company later revised the layout of the colony and changed the plot numbers, and that the plot allotted to her was never handed over. She went to the district forum in two thousand and twenty four.

What the sealing means

Sealing an office is how a consumer forum enforces an order the developer has not complied with. Under the Consumer Protection Act, an order of the forum can be executed like a civil court decree, which allows attachment of the opposite party's property. The tehsildar acts on the forum's direction, and the seal stays until the developer complies or the forum lifts it.

For the buyer, attachment is pressure, not payment. The money reaches her only if the developer complies, or if the attached property is later sold under the forum's orders. Amar Ujala did not report the date of the order or the amount awarded. It carried no response from the company.

The same colony, the same complaint

This is not the first such order against the developer over Preet City in Sector Eighty Six. In August, the district forum ordered it to hand a buyer, Gurinder Kaur, a fully developed plot of ten marla within two months, with the approvals and completion documents in place. She had been allotted the plot in two thousand and ten and finished paying thirteen lakh twenty five thousand rupees by July two thousand and fourteen. If possession was not given in time, the developer was to refund the whole deposit with interest at nine per cent a year from each payment, along with one lakh fifty thousand rupees in compensation.

Earlier still, in January two thousand and twenty, the state consumer forum in Chandigarh ruled on two complaints by buyers in the same colony. Those orders set out how the project came about. The developer took over the land from a cooperative house building society. The colony's layout was revised and approved again in two thousand and fourteen. GMADA had written to the developer in two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and fourteen that sewer and water lines had not been laid. The state forum found no proof that the developer had met the conditions of its change of land use or its layout approval, and found no sale agreement had been signed with buyers despite large payments. It ordered possession of developed plots within two months, or a refund with interest at twelve per cent a year.

The revised layout of two thousand and fourteen is the backdrop to the complaint now before the district forum. A buyer whose plot number changed on paper has to show which plot the money bought. That is harder when no agreement was ever signed.

Where buyers in the colony stand

Each order binds only the parties to it. A buyer in Preet City who has not complained gains nothing directly from the sealing or from the earlier orders. What the orders do show is how the forums have treated buyers in this colony: as consumers owed either a developed plot or their money back with interest, with the delay counted as continuing until possession is given. The state forum rejected the developer's argument that complaints filed years after payment were out of time, because the failure to deliver is a continuing wrong.

The district forum hears complaints where the amount paid, not the value of the plot, is within its limit. Buyers who paid more go to the state forum. Both have ordered the same two outcomes in this colony.

Buyers of plots in private colonies around Sector Eighty Six often hold receipts and an allotment letter but no registered agreement. The state forum's orders treat receipts as enough to show a buyer paid, and treat the missing agreement as the developer's failure under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act.

Why RERA is not the route here

The Preet City complaints went to consumer forums, not to Punjab RERA. The colony dates from before the Real Estate Act took effect, and its buyers paid most of their money years before the regulator existed. Our report on a [Zirakpur builder's tower attached to recover a buyer's award](/article/402-zirakpur-builder-s-tower-attached-to-recover-buyer-s-award) covers how RERA recovers money from a developer through the land revenue route. The consumer forum route used in Sector Eighty Six runs through the forum's own execution powers and the tehsildar.

Our piece on a [Sector One Hundred and Eleven society plot buyer who won a refund over delay](/article/406-sector-111-society-plot-buyer-wins-refund-over-delay) covers a similar colony dispute that ended in a refund order.

What is still open

The amount awarded and the date of the order are not public in the reports so far, and no appeal by the company has been reported. It is also not known whether the developer has handed over plots under the August order, whose two month window has passed. The next step in the Sukh Pavandeep Kaur case is the forum's own: it can keep the seal and order the attached property sold, or record compliance if the developer pays or hands over the plot.

Listings in the area are on our [plots](/plots) page.

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece reports consumer forum orders against a Sector Eighty Six developer. It gives no legal advice, and the position of any buyer turns on their own payments, allotment papers and the orders in their case.